I would tend to agree with that, except to add that track sprinting might also be considered an extreme situation in which stiff wheels may give better acceleration. The advantage to low flange hubs, fewer spokes and tangential lacing, in my opinion, is less fatigue on long rides or over rough terrain. The opposite approach, on the other hand, at least "feels" more responsive, and might perhaps actually improve acceleration a bit out of corners on a tight criterium course, although the stronger rider is still going to win, regardless if he rides high flange or low.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Houston, TX
Fred Rafael Rednor <fred_rednor@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jerry and friends,
I just got back from subjecting my bum to 30 miles on my
fixed gear Windsor (bona fide classic content established)
and...
While riding I was reflecting on what I wrote earlier. I
ralized it was incorrect in that I'm sure there are people who
can discern the difference between these variables. What I
shouldhave said was that - except for certain extreme
situations like very rapid, curving descents - I doubt there
is any real difference in speed. Perhaps ther is a difference
in _perceived_ speed but that's different than real speed.
Of course, I also acknowledge that there are ways in which
differences in comfort can have an effect on actual speed.
I hope that makes more sense.
Cheers to everyone,
Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia
> Well, my bum has only about 35 years of riding lightweights,
> not counting my childhood coaster brake and "English Racer"
> bikes. But it can definitely tell differences between flange
> sizes and number of spokes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Houston, TX
>
> Fred Rafael Rednor wrote:
> Off-list:
> Just tell him that 50 years of riding withthe same tuchus
> and multiple wheel sets has convinced you there's no
> difference
> between high and low flange. (At least my tuchus can't tell
> the difference - but I only have 45 years of riding on it...)
> Fred
>
>
> --- Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
>
> > Well, maybe, but I'd want to see how the tests were
> > conducted. Maybe different wheels react similarly to radial
> > loading, but actual riding involves lateral loads, which
> > might be an entirely different story. As an engineer
> myself,
> > I'm always suspicious of "scientific testing". True,
> > sometimes it can explode myths, but testing only gives you
> > the answers to the questions you design the test to ask.
> > It's all too common to see people design tests to prove
> what
> > they believe, often with total sincerity, and the firm but
> > mistaken belief that they are being "scientific". In my
> > mind it takes more than a few hours of testing to
> > conclusively disprove millions of manyears of collective
> > practical experiene, even granting that experience is
> > subjective and can be influenced by popoular myth.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jerry Moos
> > Houston, TX
> >
> > HM & SS Sachs wrote:
> > Ted Ernst has done an excellent job of capturing the
> > conventional wisdom about performance differences between
> > high flange and low flange hubs. My good friend Jim
> > Papadopoulos actually did measurements on wheels,
> > particularly on spoking patterns (radial to 4 cross). In
> the
> > test stand, the differences were so small as to be
> > unnoticeable. What continues to amaze me is how much the
> > "engineering" of the bikes we love was driven by marketing,
> > myth, and tradition. It's not unique in this (think about
> > house construction). Here's an example: Schwinn (and
> others)
> > did a lot of real engineering for their manufacturing
> > processes, but not nearly as much for the product design
> > itself -- unless you count waterpipe welding and grinding.
> >
> > Again, I'm not criticizing Ted, for whom I have great
> > respect, but just pointing out where all of us were, and
> how
> > it seems to differ from some other fields that are better
> > capitalized.
> >
> > harvey sachs
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > It's not a matter of better,but a matter of proper
> > application of product.
> > In general terms, high flange hubs were prettier?(to the
> > commodity broker
> > importer),and several $ more expensive. A lot of the older
> > racing bikes were
> > fairly flexible so a stiffer more responsive high flange
> > balanced some of
> > that out.
> > High flanges were also nice for short course tight corner
> > racing.
> > Remember, there were few racers but
> > a lot of new riders who wanted fast , light bikes and a
> > racing bike is what
> > they got. A good clincher wheel sport touring bike with
> > lesser quality
> > equipment
> > was cheaper and obviously not as good. There were few good
> > frame sport
> > touring bikes on the market during the '60's. Custom, sure,
> > but not
> > production
> > hand built as the " racing bikes" were.
> > It was not a matter of the customer getting smarter as it
> was
> > the shops and
> > importers getting to know bikes better and wising up. Maybe
> > the europeans
> > had a little sales con going on also to get rid of less
> > popular items at
> > home.
> > The small flange hubs were better for rough roads and long
> > distance riding.
> > As the frame tubing metallurgy improved the stiffer frames
> > allowed for more
> > small flange hub use and it got to be standard as time went
> > along. In my
> > opinion
> > a large flange hub is still nicer for short course snappy
> > riding. But with
> > today's
> > technology. metallurgy, carbon, aero shaped rims, one can
> > beat themselves to
> > aches and pains. My feeling on this is only for vintage
> bike
> > use. Today's
> > equipment
> > is much nicer, but the old stuff is much more fun. Modern
> > riders and,
> > equipment are
> > blended with comfort, weight,and efficiency in mind. During
> > the '60's-'70's
> > I raced on
> > 28h Arc en Ciel rims, high flange hubs in all the So. Cal.
> > races and hardly
> > ever
> > had to touch up the true. Ted Ernst.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com